Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

9mm still NATO standard an in service already. If americans try and change calibre it'll open the whole .45ACP argument again

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

I think the US Military can live with the 9mm as a whole, with specialise units being able to choose their own calibres as needed. I am more concerned that the US may move away from 5.56 which will force NATO to change as it has in the past adopting 7.62 and 5.56.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: live with the 9mm as a whole, with specialise units being able to choose their own calibres as needed.
That is probably what is happening. The Secret Service and many police forces have already made the transition, but their logs chain is quite different: geographically more defined and does not involve expending/ stocking millions of rounds.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Anyone have a clue if our SF have followed the US in adopting larger pistol and SMG rounds such as 10mm or .45 for their CQB rigs?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: adopting larger pistol and SMG rounds
Not a clue, but that is not what you should do, but go opposites:
- for lots of baddies, wearing body armour, you need to have a SMG adapted for 5.7 (e.g. an Uzi)
- for one or two , using a car or some other metal for cover, you need a large pistol round, from 9 mm EMB up
" The Five-SeveN sends lead-free SS195 hollow-point jacketed bullet downrange at 1950 feet per second, generating some 220 ft-lbs. of muzzle energy. The SS195 round penetrates traditional ballistic gelatin (in the usual testing process) to a depth of 10.5 to 11 inches.

More to the point (so to speak), the SS195 round is designed to tumble and yaw when it hits its target, creating a wound channel as wide as the bullet is tall (21.6-mm or .85 in). The Secret Service is down with that. But then they get the law enforcement-only SS198LF cartridge. That bullet’s 2050 FPS velocity gives the feds body armor-piercing capabilities while maintaining the round’s flat-shooting flight characteristics and loss of lethality at 550 to 750 yards (vs. approximately one mile for a 9mm bullet).

The combined, loaded weight of both together is not a big deal: the ammo that you need more of "the 5.7×28mm cartridge is a diddy thing. FN’s SS195 cartridge (the best choice for self-defense) is a 27-grain projectile, as compared to the average 9mm bullet’s 115 – 147-grain tally."

All quotes from http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/0 ... ive-seven/
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

I understand the benefits of the wave of smaller high penetration rounds as used by the MP7 and the P90, and I have heard some stories regarding the MP7 being either seriously looked at or in use with some people. But the US has a thing for man stoppers like the .45 especially when they are allowed to use other loads besides copper jacketed.

I know we went with the mini SA-80 for vehicle crew for supply and commonality reasons but the MP7 would have been so much better.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:mini SA-80
What does that look like? The normal trick is a folding butt.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Defiance »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:mini SA-80
What does that look like? The normal trick is a folding butt.
An SA80 with a cut down barrel which looks (to me) incredibly weird but I guess that's an option with a bullpup thanks to the internals
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Defiance wrote: I guess that's [an] THE ONLY option with a bullpup
Thanks, just what I thought: so you get an SMG with double the weight.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Defiance »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Thanks, just what I thought: so you get an SMG with double the weight.
Slightly different, I believe (memory info no sources to hand) it still has a longer barrel length than an M4 so it's more intermediary than an SMG.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Defiance wrote:more intermediary than an SMG.
True, as the round is more hard hitting (than an SMG round).

If you have to scramble out of the vehicle (esp. from a tank) size is everything (meaning the inverse of it) and weight is quite secondary.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Gabriele »

stories regarding the MP7 being either seriously looked at or in use with some people.
MOD Police and RMP are both users.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

Our very own Tony Williams firing the L22 A2... I'm guessing that it really needs a muzzle shroud, yet I've never seen one attached
sa80 a2 k7.jpg
Be interesting to see what an A3 update would look like (get ready for a really bad Photoshop :D )....
L22 a3.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tinman »

Lord Jim wrote:I understand the benefits of the wave of smaller high penetration rounds as used by the MP7 and the P90, and I have heard some stories regarding the MP7 being either seriously looked at or in use with some people. But the US has a thing for man stoppers like the .45 especially when they are allowed to use other loads besides copper jacketed.

I know we went with the mini SA-80 for vehicle crew for supply and commonality reasons but the MP7 would have been so much better.
US Tier 1 units use the MP7. One of the reasons USA have stayed with the 9mm, is that it is easier to train recruits to shoot with and also many of the Police Departments have reverted back to the 9mm.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Gabriele wrote:MOD Police and RMP are both users.
Just to get the baddies, and not the folks behind them, and also behind the wall in between?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Caribbean »

Tinman wrote:One of the reasons USA have stayed with the 9mm, is that it is easier to train recruits to shoot with
From my rather limited civilian target-shooting experience, 9mm is definitely easier than heavier calibres to sustain accuracy with. Heavier recoil is more wearing (important over a full day competition) and requires greater (and thus slower) adjustment between rounds (important in timed and rapid-fire events). Admittedly that's talking from a target shooting perspective, which may have little military relevance, but I can see it being important in building initial confidence and accuracy. Conversion from 9mm to any other full-bore handgun calibre is also pretty easy, once the basics have been learnt. 9mm ammunition is (or was when I was still actively shooting), pretty cheap, which is, I guess, a consideration when you are burning through millions of rounds in training.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tinman »

Caribbean wrote:
Tinman wrote:One of the reasons USA have stayed with the 9mm, is that it is easier to train recruits to shoot with
From my rather limited civilian target-shooting experience, 9mm is definitely easier than heavier calibres to sustain accuracy with. Heavier recoil is more wearing (important over a full day competition) and requires greater (and thus slower) adjustment between rounds (important in timed and rapid-fire events). Admittedly that's talking from a target shooting perspective, which may have little military relevance, but I can see it being important in building initial confidence and accuracy. Conversion from 9mm to any other full-bore handgun calibre is also pretty easy, once the basics have been learnt. 9mm ammunition is (or was when I was still actively shooting), pretty cheap, which is, I guess, a consideration when you are burning through millions of rounds in training.

Also take into consideration the weight of the round, when your carry a full load.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

This was developing on a wrong thread, so thought I would paste mark's comment here, for continuation
" the army and royal marines certainly have promoted sniping for many years! What came into focus in Afghanistan was the poor choice in ammunition for the standard infantry rifle. And the need for intermediate to long range like 7.62mm meant the need for the Designated marksman rifle. all these shortcommings were being highlighted in Ulster in the 90's The LSW was being used in the role of DMR along the border along with LMG and GPMG being deployed in larger numbers to give sections reach.
L96 rifle was already in service and the L115 was well down the road to deployment pre afghanistan.......But we digress"

Just to add that it was in the US were army let the sniper skills/training perish, and had to use the help of the USMC (who had not done the same) to get up to speed plenty quick.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ritchie
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 18:04
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Ritchie »

Okay, saw this today via arrse: https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threa ... ce.262018/

Suggested that the section is moving to 1 GPMG and 7 L85, all part of Project Payne which, as we know, is designed to reduce the load carried by section infantry. How is this going to reduce the load carried by the section, ie having to carry GPMG link as opposed to LMG link?

Incidentally, as ever, not a really sensible discussion on arrse but I am sure we can have one here ;-)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

partially you lighten the GPMG for patrol use like the swedes did?
7.62 does give better reach than 5.56 and hit harder. Though the school of infantry has fought this combination since the introduction of the SA80 and the argument of 2 calibers in a section. but back to the good old 7 rifles and 1 GPMG section of 20 years ago.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

Little J wrote:Our very own Tony Williams firing the L22 A2... I'm guessing that it really needs a muzzle shroud, yet I've never seen one attached
sa80 a2 k7.jpg
Galil SAR behind him interesting

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:you lighten the GPMG for patrol use like the swedes did?
7.62 does give better reach than 5.56 and hit harder
The Swedes originally adopted the FN (L7) MG in a 6.5 x 55 (mm) version, so when they went over to the NATO round, they knew what to work towards; a few tricks here:

100 mm shorter barrel.
Better and shorter flash hider to reduce the length of the weapon and to produce a smaller muzzle flash, which means less disruption to the user's night vision.
Fluted barrel in order to reduce the weight and better dissipate the heat of the barrel.
Gas regulator has only 4 settings (instead of 8). The last position is painted red and is intended for emergency use.
Larger 100-round ammunition pouches replaced 50-round pouches. (patrol use , as cited)
New ammunition cases (canvas covered).
New equipment bags.


And the bottom line...
The weight of the MG is the same, but the entire system is 3 kg (6.5 lbs) lighter.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

like this?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yep. And that mag is not the patrol one, but those would have been the 50s you can somehow have on the belt, without them knocking you over when moving more briskly
- the one in the piccie is what the "riflemen" ie. the other 7 can contribute to the combined fire power (and reach)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ritchie
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 18:04
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Ritchie »

So, any chance we are going to see modifications to our GPMGs, ie shorter barrel etc., and will we see the reintroduction of the gunner's number two? I am all in favour of this by the way.

Further, what about the L86 LSW, and what about the L129 DMS? I believe the LSW (Long Silly Weapon ;-)) fell out of favour some time ago, but gained some importance in the DMS role. Further some were converted to the L22 carbine. Why have two DMS, ie LSW along with the L129, and not to mention the logistics of using two different rounds in section? To my mind seeing as the LMG and the L129 were UORs, and therefore not core funded, is it right to think this might be behind the decision to go to 1 plus 7? Also, am I correct in thinking that the L129 has been consigned to the sniper support role, ie not in section?

Post Reply